have leaky irrigation systems throughout. it makes it more expensive and time-consuming. we have 131,000 trees on park land in the city. we maintain each and every one of the trees once every 50 years. we are often in crisis mode dealing with trees, but we are not maintaining the urban forest. supervisor farrell: in terms of capital budget, we are trying to compensate for a sense of the past -- for sins of the past? >> i think that is certainly a big piece of it. again, i don't think people

fully understand the breadth and reach of our parks system. to maintain it all and no way that families need and depend on requires operating investment and capital investment. on the capital side, i give kudos to the board of supervisors and the mayor. the 10-year capital plan is working because we have strategic -- term planning conversations about addressing our capital needs and we have a mechanism for addressing them in an ongoing basis. that is really good news for families. beyond parks, all kinds of infrastructure is there for us to rely on. restrooms, playground equipment, green infrastructure, our urban forest, our buildings, our path waves -- pathways.

technology has changed, all kinds of factors. keeping families here is our fundamental responsibility to provide quality recreation. i really do think that it is in a really strong place at the moment. we have not an aquatics centers for programs and activities. we have tons of learned to swim programs. we have incredible cultural arts planning including after-school programs. we have dance and theater, music and writing, national sciences and technology. we have the arts center, the museums. youth sports is an important

topic that i will revisit in the second when we talk about challenges. we have an abundance of sports leagues and camps. we have about 500 courses for kids between the birth -- and some are immediately after birth. they start at nine months to five years. physical activity, arts and culture stimulation, it runs from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. supervisor farrell: there are a lot of programs we want more of, for sure. do you have statistics on usage? how are we guiding metrics and how are we thinking about this? >> we have some very good metrics.

we do track our program registrations both on a year-to- year basis and season-to-season basis. march 3 was the first day of registration for the spring registration season. we have 3300 registrations in the first day, 700 more than last year. it was growth of about 14%. that is something we are working on. we want to make sure the class's we are offering -- classes we're offering. we strive for a 70% occupancy rate. we have people on long waiting lists and the things that are not as full. it has to do with time, location, subject matter, and

marketing. we earned every bit of marketing that we get. yeah, i know. i reall don't like the tie. i stopped wearing in around july of 2008. i think it is helping a particular demographic, we are now competing with private sector recreational amenities and suburban recreational amenities in terms of the outdoor action sports we are providing. five years ago, we were not offering family support. scuba lessons, bmx, kayaking, skateboarding. we are trying to spend time and we are trying to work very closely with assessment. and we have community recreation councils, but we are trying to actually not just offer what we

historical have offered. we've also gotten a really robust scholarship program. it is because of the philanthropic support we are getting. four years ago, we give away about $80,000. if this year, we will give away about $600,000 in free programming. the department of children, youth, and family could not be stronger. if there was a time when that was not the case. we get support for some of our programming and it is also what maria mentioned, hiring about 150 kids. we have a great partnership with san francisco unified school district. we just completed our inaugural season.

we brought our staff to help coach, and it was a partnership between parents and coaches. and summer camps. families want something for their kids to do. we have been able to step up. we have camps we offer to the public. everything from traditional camps to new camps, skateboarding. we go shark fishing, believe it or not. we take teens up to camp meter. we give them a week of overnight camp. recreation programming is really vital. another thing we tried to do to help support families are family events and improve park remedies. we have structure were we

offer for annual family of events, and all of us have been benefited at one time or another. we have playday on the last year, there were 10,000 people coming to scaregrove halloween.we tried ty friendly events, like the world cup showings the last couple of years. a women's world cup event, the final in japan-usa. it was great to see thousands of what were mostly families approach has also been geared towards families were you can now rent abike and one part an working with the san francisco bike coalition. definitely be family

we have more farmers' markets hough of the bread. we will see 500 people, many families gathering. it is a place to eat, to socialize and have fun. we continue our closure over the weekend. it is now closed on both saturdays and sundays. it creates more opportunities for young families teaching kids out of bike. runners, walkers, we work very closely to bring and recreation and healthy family options. something that we don't talk a lot about, but in terms of making the city livable, every on 430,000 hours.

they help us to operate more efficiently. they are also getting our kids to become park stewards, and by getting their hands dirty, they take a vested interest. i know that you grew up here and spent time in the neighborhoods. i think you were a member of my staff at one point. i think all three of you appreciate how important it is to volunteer and get your hands dirty. we believe it has an impact on the decision by kid growing up to stay in the city. we just kicked off a program where we are working with teens and giving them a monthly stipend. they will get a monthly environmental education in storage chip program. those are some of the strategies we have been using to keep families happy and thriving.

in 2005, did a pretty study of determined that we woul have 35 soccer and 30 baseball and softball meet demand as it was in 2005. it was growing significantly. we needed the 30-35 more, we have about 80. we are seeing significant growth in terms of the youth sports teams. we have seen a 25% increase in sports teams and sports a hours since 2009. we have had a dramatic increase in popularity and girls' sports that is a great thing. while a lot of them were

dominated by mostly other schools, we are seeing that through the schools themselves, they form their own teams getting more involved. some have partners. in 2006, after this study, we embarked upon a partnership with the feiel -- field foundation. you hear it all the time, my kid can't get a feel the practice. we're going to the peninsula or the east bay. it coincided with the beginning of little league season. seventh of families moved to the suburbs because they could not get their kids on a ball team. i am hopeful that with the

shipyard development project that it will include some oilfields over time, but we know is a long way away. we have no more land. through the partnership with the city feels that includes a synthetic turf and permit any reservation efficiencies, we can increase -- which was to a park that was not that well populated. you will see hundreds and hundreds of people out there. between the new fields and changes we have made to the permit. a parent aided our system and

said screw it, we will try to fix the system. she is tough but she has squeezed out more and more field space. that is how we met the extra 25%. the demand keeps growing. girls softball is a growing sport. soccer is off the charts right now. we have a couple of projects in the pipeline and it will be a synthetic turf project. those projects, obviously you are aware of them. it will add an additional number of hours. supervisor farrell: does that exhausted the city field foundation? >> yep. that's it. in the 2012 parks bond, the

advantage to the synthetic turf fields, they don't need to rest. fields need the rest. three months of every year. with this, we get 12 months of play instead of nine months. we don't have rain-outs. fields are in a safer state of being. lights squeeze extra play out of it. there is a significant difference in the quality of life for our families and our kids. supervisor farrell: one anecdote that you mentioned about little league field, i worked as a park director growing up and saw a bunch of little league teams trying out. they were so excited to have their kids on the field for the

first time. they did talk about the fact that they were going out to treasure island at best. i remember going to the park's growing up. i thought that growing up in the city was a great way to get exposure everywhere and the city. playing us of " team, field hockey, it was a way to interact with the economy. >> i am living in it. i have growth that plays soccer. -- girls that play soccer. i am in five-seven different facilities. we also have to get out to treasure island.

we'll be in moraga this week. supervisor farrell: good luck with that. >> we need more sports fields. supervisor farrell: you have mentioned the synthetic fields, and some of that is controversial. my question is, as you look to the future, we live in a climate in san francisco. is this the only way to go from your point of view going forward that we will be able to actually create an awful field for everyone going forward? >> is fundamentally important if we want other families to live

here. if we want to keep families here and we want to keep them healthy, we need to figure out strategies to squeeze more hours out of the field that we have, or the other option is to figure out a way to build new ones. the first strategy is probably a lot more of an outside and a lot more potential from the second one. i am hopeful that as we continue, the southeast continues to develop the long- term planning process to think about the need for parks or there is rejuvenation, landscapes, and beautification, but a place where the kids can play. it is a story that has been before you many times, but it is

investment. if we are going to do the mission that families need us to do, the city is committed to keeping families and keeping them happy, healthy, and thriving, as a matter of public policy, we have to make a decision to invest more. which of 12% of the city's land, less than 2% of the general fund. we have been asked to reduce our spending over the last seven years. the public demand has not dissipated. and if we want to keep the families that we have, and we have more families that need and demand the services, it is only going to increase. i would much rather see haunt and investment in playgrounds

and public recreation. it is critical. the public agrees. 82% of the respondents said that the city's recreation and park department he more funding. eight out of 10 respondents spoke -- focused on playground equipment. maintaining the safety is extremely important. president chiu, you asked about the department doing a lot of things. there are a handful of the apartments that spend a lot of time focused on this. a lot of departments really share this mission. i agree it would be important to come up with a metric to figure out how we are doing. in terms of whether the metric

is based on out migration or growth in public-school enrollments for growth in permits, you can probably figure that out. i am optimistic about the passion. we are all focused on this, we want this. do not underestimate the impact that our parks and recreational amenities play in this equation. what i thought i would do is to end a little bit on a happy note. president chiu: i recognize that every department needs a set of metrics to keep in to make sure that we are achieving what we need to achieve. while it may not be one metric, it would be helpful for us to

come to an agreement to say, what would be useful for us to drive toward? it is hard when the public looks of the millions of dollars we spend and everyone of these areas. if the metric is serving our families, how do we think about that? i'm looking at you and the department heads to tell us what you think ought to be the metric so that you can come back to us to say we are making headway or we are not for what ever good or less than good reasons. >> what i wanted to end with, it has been a rather long hearing, if i can find it here, i mentioned that we have --

[unintelligible] [chanting] >> all right. supervisor farrell: thank you, phil. we appreciate the presentation. we'll try to speed things up here. dan kelly, then you for being here from our human services

agency to give a little bit of overview from your department and your perspective. >> i oversee planning for human services agency. our agency has to departments, the department of human services that includes medical, food stamps, children's protective services, etcetera. our perspective is maybe a little broader, and the lenses basically poverty. we see family flight not isolation, but part of broader trends. the fight of african americans from the city and the alarming rise in social isolation among san franciscans, particularly

low-incumbeome ones. it doesn't show very well. can that be centered? this was a great chart. the title, in particular. it shoews the adult and child population. san francisco has always had very few children. if we look back to the 50s, the baby boom population, the sixties, white families started to migrate from the suburbs. we continue to have very low number of cities. we have fewer joe then than any other major city in the nation. -- if your children than any

other major city in the nation. it is so much more acute because we have so many few were to begin with. supervisor farrell: the lowest percentage of any other major city in the country? >> yes, it has been true for several decades. manhattan is now at 15 something. at 2000, our proportion was 14.5%, manhattan was 18.5%. even looking for comparisons, that would be the best i can think of. i want to talk about it in the context of this growing trend of economic inequality. again, we are concerned mostly with low-income families. it measures income distribution in the city. if one person in the city that

all of the income, this measure would be 1.0. if it was distributed evenly among everybody, if it would bezero. -- be zero. it shows a tremendous leap in inequality in the city. it is a trend nationwide. it is accentuated in san francisco, a very acute. it has a lot of different applications including families. it creates this two-year community. -- two-tiered community. it leads to the awful certainty with which we can say at the age of 5, what are the outcome's going to be in terms of

education and so forth? thinking about that, what you see as the growth of highly educated persons in san francisco related to the knowledge economy. but you see, we have grown much higher in terms of the percentage of people with college degrees. i think we are neck-and-neck with seattle for our lead in the nation. people with more education make more money. they drive up the cost of everything. in looking at this, imagine my department's challenge in finding work for families when they have such educational deficits. this is a little bit dated, i took it from the office of

economic work force development. showing gains and losses in terms of and come. this is 1990 to 2000. you see the tremendous growth -of persons with advanced degrees at the drop of people with high school degrees. they are probably immigrants living in an insulated labour market. this shows the age migration and san francisco between 1990 and 2010. it confirms some of the things discussed earlier. on the left is lost, on the right is gain. a slight loss for kids under five, right?